Donley v. Stryker Corporation

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

January 6, 2017

KELLEY DONLEY, Plaintiff,v.STRYKER CORPORATION, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CHARLES P. KOCORAS, District Judge

Now
before the Court is Defendant Stryker Sales Corporation's
(“Stryker”), incorrectly named Stryker
Corporation in the caption of the Complaint, Motion for
Summary Judgment against Plaintiff Kelley Donley
(“Donley”), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 56. For the following reasons, the Motion is
granted.

BACKGROUND

The
following facts taken from the record are undisputed, except
where otherwise noted. The parties disagree regarding the
event that led to Donley's termination. Stryker argues
that it “terminated Donley's employment . . . after
it came to light that she had taken [photos] of the CEO of
one of Stryker's valued vendors [(the ‘CEO')]
in a highly intoxicated state in the CEO's private hotel
room and then shared” them with coworkers. Conversely,
Donley “claims that Stryker terminated her employment
in violation of Title VII because she . . . reported to Human
Resources alleged [sexual] harassment of” another
employee.

Donley
began working for Stryker, a medical technology company, in
October 2010, after it acquired Gaymar Industries, which was
Donley's previous employer. She worked from home,
covering Stryker's Central and Midwest territories. While
employed at Stryker, Donley attended a clinical team meeting
in Vail, Colorado, which took place from May 21, 2014 through
May 23, 2014. The CEO also attended the meeting in Vail.
Throughout this time period, attendees stayed overnight at
the same “hotel where the meetings were taking
place.”

During
one of the nights in Vail, attendees got dinner in groups,
and after dinner, they “returned to the hotel
bar.” Throughout “the evening, Donley and others,
” including the CEO, consumed alcohol. Because the CEO
was slurring her words, and Donley “didn't want to
see anything adverse happen, ” Donley testified that
“she escorted the . . . CEO up to her hotel
room.” At her hotel room, the “CEO washed her
face and changed into her [long-sleeved flannel]
pajamas” with Donley present.

While
in the CEO's hotel room, Donley took a photo of the CEO
“with her Stryker-issued cell phone.” In response
to this photo, the CEO stated, “oh, no, no, more
pictures.” Donley testified that she then responded,
“are you kidding, on a good day where I work hard at
it, I don't look half this cute.” Donley also
showed the CEO the photo. According to Donley, after seeing
the photo, the CEO responded, “oh, I do look cute,
don't I[?]” Donley subsequently took another photo.
In the second photo, the “CEO blinked such that
‘it might have looked like she was
sleeping.'” Prior to leaving the CEO's hotel
room, Donley “put a garbage can . . . by the bed in
case she got sick in the middle of the night.” Donley
then returned to the hotel bar.

While
at the hotel bar, Donley claims that she showed Jeff Thompson
(“Thompson”), the Director of Clinical Sales and
Donley's supervisor, the second photo of the CEO. Donley
alleges that she did this because she wanted to show Thompson
that the CEO was okay. To further support her assertion that
she showed Thompson the photo on the night that she took it,
Donley contends that Stryker stated in a position statement
that it “submitted to the EEOC in January of 2015 that
[Donley] showed the photos at issue to Thompson on the night
she took them.”

Stryker
disputes that Donley showed Thompson any photos on the night
that she took them. First, Thompson testified that Donley did
not show him any photos of the CEO upon her return to the
hotel bar. Thompson also testified that Donley did not tell
him that she took any photos of the CEO. Thompson attested
that a coworker on his team first informed him that Donley
took photos of the CEO, but he did not remember who that
person was. Thompson also stated that after he became aware
of the photos, he reported them to Stacie Ferschweiler
(“Ferschweiler”), Director of Human Resources,
who investigates allegations of misconduct. Second, Stryker
argues that Thompson did not review the position statement
“before its submission to the EEOC, ” and asserts
that it “simply stated” that during her exit
interview, Ashlee Schexnyder (“Schexnyder”)
“told . . . Ferschweiler that . . . Schexnyder was not
the only person to whom [Donley] showed [a] video and the
photographs . . . . [Donley] also showed the photos and video
to . . . Thompson, ” who similarly to Schexnyder,
“was unamused and advised [Donley] that she should
delete the photos and video.”

Donley
admits that, while she was at the hotel bar, “some of
her coworkers asked for photos [that she] had taken earlier
in the evening, so she gave them her phone[, ] and she thinks
they swiped through the photos on her phone.” Donley
testified that “nobody” said “a single
word” to her about the photos of the CEO.

Donley
claims that Stryker terminated her not because of the events
that took place in Vail, but in violation of Title VII
because on or around June 27, 2014, “she made a formal
complaint of sexual harassment to” Ferschweiler. Donley
informed Ferschweiler that Stryker's Midwest Regional
Manager “behaved inappropriately toward a female Sales
Representative during . . . Stryker's Midwest Regional
Meeting” in early June 2014 at the Manager's cabin,
“at which Donley had not been present.”
Purportedly, the Manager was touching the
Representative's leg, “making inappropriate
comments about her, ” and the night before the meeting,
he invited her to his cabin alone.

Ferschweiler
forwarded Donley's internal complaint to Melissa Lewis
(“Lewis”), Senior Director of Human Resources.
“Shortly thereafter, Lewis contacted Donley.”
Lewis “was very supportive, telling Donley that she
appreciated Donley bringing the situation to her and
Ferschweiler's attention.” Lewis also emailed
Donley to thank her for her time. Lewis advised Donley that
“it was a highly confidential matter, ” and
informed Donley that she “should not hesitate to reach
out to her should she have any questions or additional
information.” According to Donley, “Human
Resources seemed to take the investigation seriously, ”
and Lewis demonstrated empathy. Donley admits that she did
not receive “any negative comments” regarding her
“report against the . . . Manager, and that no one in
management ever made any statements to her that would
indicate they had a problem with” her internal
complaint against the Manager.

Human
Resources investigated Donley's internal complaint,
interviewing multiple individuals, including the
Representative and the Manager. “As a result of the
investigation, ” Stryker decided to terminate the
Manager's employment on or around July 31, 2014. At the
time of his termination, Stryker offered the Manager a
severance agreement in the amount of $29, 817.00. Stryker
claims that it offered the Manager the severance agreement
“in exchange for strengthening the non-compete
agreement that” he signed with Stryker in 2006 because,
as the Manager, he “was aware of and had access to a
large amount of proprietary information.” Donley, in
contrast, alleges that “[t]he severance agreement d[id]
not strengthen the non-compete.” According to Donley,
it “merely attached a copy of the previously signed
non-compete, required the . . . [Manager] to
‘acknowledge[ ] and affirm[ ] the obligations set
forth' therein, and stated that the severance
compensation was ‘additional consideration for
post-termination obligations.'” Donley argues that
she too “signed a Stryker Confidentiality, Intellectual
Property, Non-Competition, and Non-Solicitation Agreement in
March of 2011.” Donley also claims that she “was
aware of and had access to a large amount of [Stryker's]
proprietary information.” Nonetheless, Stryker did not
offer Donley a severance agreement upon her termination.

The
parties dispute when Ferschweiler first became aware
of the events that took place in Vail. Stryker claims that it
learned about the events in Vail around August 1, 2014,
during Schexnyder's exit interview. As was her standard
practice, on “August 1, 2014, Ferschweiler conducted an
[exit] interview of” Schexnyder, who was one of
Donley's clinical team coworkers. During the exit
interview, Schexnyder “stated that Donley had helped
the CEO . . . to bed” in Vail, “after the CEO had
had some alcoholic drinks, and when Donley returned to the
hotel bar . . ., Donley had a video that she had taken of the
CEO passed out on her bed with a trashcan beside the
bed.” Schexnyder “also told Ferschweiler that
Donley had taken photos of the CEO, and that [she] thought
that Donley had shown [them] to clinical team members Tracy
Wise [(‘Wise')] and Chanda Wiedrick
[(‘Wiedrick')].” After Schexnyder's exit
interview, “Ferschweiler initiated a disciplinary
investigation” to determine whether Donley “had
taken compromising photos or videos” of the CEO.

“Donley
admits that she does not know how the photos came to Human
Resources' attention.” However, Donley alleges that
“Thompson testified that he learned of the
photos” before Ferschweiler began the formal
investigation, reported them to her, and “asked her to
investigate” them. Although “Thompson could not
recall specifically when he reported the photos to”
Ferschweiler, according to Donley, “he ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.